Monday, August 31, 2009

In an Irish Times article on Saturday Garret Fitzgerald made the case for what he termed responsible opposition on the issue of NAMA. Again today on RTE Radio’s Morning Ireland he sang a similar tune.

Both FG and Labour have serious misgivings in relation to NAMA-and rightly so. As opposition parties it is their solemn duty to point out the glaring inadequacies. Failure to do so would be highly irresponsible. In the Irish Times article he stated that "I have hitherto avoided any comment on the relative merits of NAMA vis-à-vis other possible approaches because I have not felt competent to comment on the finer points of what is a highly technical issue".

Quite frankly this is an amazing admission. Yet this morning Garret strongly criticized the 46 economists who expressed serious misgivings about NAMA. He is referring to such learned academics as Prof Brian Lucey, School of Business, Trinity College Dublin, Prof Karl Whelan, Department of Economics, University College Dublin, Dr Constantin Gurdgiev, lecturer in finance, School of Business, Trinity College Dublin,Dr Moore McDowell, senior lecturer in economics, Department of Economics, UCD amongst others. With a few dismissive comments Fitzgerald rubbished them. Garret with his admitted lack of competence knows more than all of them put together. His arrogance was breathtaking. Garret appears to want a quick fix and to hell with the long-term consequences. Now is the time to point out the glaring weaknesses in the government proposals.

Amongst the questions posed by Brian Lucey are the following:

What evidence does NAMA have that the current market price of property, land etc is not in fact the correct price to pay?

What evidence does NAMA have that the current market price of these is not in fact going to decline for a number of years, as would be the case if Ireland were to follow the common experience of previous property crashes?

Why would a temporary nationalisation of the banks be a bad thing, given that this would provide the taxpayer with a valuable asset which could be sold in future years?

Why does no independent analyst support the governments view on NAMA? This includes the Swedish finance minister who ran their bad bank system, who said to the Irish Times that he “favours the more severe mark-to-market write-down of assets rather than a ‘through the cycle’ valuation.”, and that “it (NAMA) does not sound like the right solution to buy assets from private banks.” It also includes the IMF who said " Insolvent institutions (with insufficient cash flows) should be closed, merged, or temporarily placed in public ownership until private sector solutions can be developed ... there have been numerous instances (for example, Japan, Sweden and the United States),

where a period of public ownership has been used to cleanse balance sheets and pave the way to sales back to the private sector", in the context of saying that the likely losses for Irish banks were such as to render them insolvent.

Why not force the equity and bond holders in Irish banks to take the first place in the queue to absorb the losses that the banks would have to book were current market prices to be paid for the loans made. After all, that’s what risk capital is for?

If the state overpays for the loans relative to current market prices, what, apart from a functioning banking system, does the taxpayer gain?

What percentage of book value of the loans should NAMA pay, given that current market prices for land and development properties are somewhere around 30% or less of book value?

If NAMA were to pay say €60b for loans that are worth only €30b, how can this transfer of a full years tax revenue to private speculators be justified in this economic time?

If, as is entirely possible, the loans transferred to NAMA do not provide sufficient income to meet the coupon payments of the bonds issues by NAMA, will the taxpayer, at least in the short term, not have to meet these payments?

It is particularly noticeable that Fitzgerald has failed to address these questions. Instead he has played the man and not the ball.In addition he has failed to address FG or Labour criticisms in any meaningful way. The FG proposals stand up to scrutiny. They may not be perfect but certainly protect the taxpayer to the maximum possible extent.If as appears likely the FG proposals do not find favour in the Dail, NAMA will in all probability go through in some shape or form. It must be radically changed if this generation of taxpayers is not to be paupered. Brian Lenihan must take on board the criticisms of the 46 leading economists and those of FG and Labour.As far as Garret Fitzgerald is concerned Ireland can marry NAMA in haste and repent at leisure.

Saturday, August 29, 2009

Susan Graham and James David Christie give a moving rendition of the hymn "Ave Maria" by Schubert at the funeral mass for Sen. Edward Kennedy at Our Lady of Perpetual Help Basilica church in Boston. It reminds me very much of Ave Maria as sung by Renee Fleming and Sissel.

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Economist Brian M Lucey has been a strong critic of NAMA. He poses 10 Questions for TDs and Senators who support Nama.

What evidence does NAMA have that the current market price of property, land etc is not in fact the correct price to pay?

What evidence does NAMA have that the current market price of these is not in fact going to decline for a number of years, as would be the case if Ireland were to follow the common experience of previous property crashes?

Why would a temporary nationalisation of the banks be a bad thing, given that this would provide the taxpayer with a valuable asset which could be sold in future years?

Why does no independent analyst support the governments view on NAMA? This includes the Swedish finance minister who ran their bad bank system, who said to the Irish Times that he “favours the more severe mark-to-market write-down of assets rather than a ‘through the cycle’ valuation.”, and that “it (NAMA) does not sound like the right solution to buy assets from private banks.” It also includes the IMF who said " Insolvent institutions (with insufficient cash flows) should be closed, merged, or temporarily placed in public ownership until private sector solutions can be developed ... there have been numerous instances (for example, Japan, Sweden and the United States),

where a period of public ownership has been used to cleanse balance sheets and pave the way to sales back to the private sector", in the context of saying that the likely losses for Irish banks were such as to render them insolvent.

Why not force the equity and bond holders in Irish banks to take the first place in the queue to absorb the losses that the banks would have to book were current market prices to be paid for the loans made. After all, that’s what risk capital is for?

If the state overpays for the loans relative to current market prices, what, apart from a functioning banking system, does the taxpayer gain?

What percentage of book value of the loans should NAMA pay, given that current market prices for land and development properties are somewhere around 30% or less of book value?

If NAMA were to pay say €60b for loans that are worth only €30b, how can this transfer of a full years tax revenue to private speculators be justified in this economic time?

If, as is entirely possible, the loans transferred to NAMA do not provide sufficient income to meet the coupon payments of the bonds issues by NAMA, will the taxpayer, at least in the short term, not have to meet these payments?

August 25 2009Dear Brian,I am writing to you in response to your recent letter asking for comments and observations from Fine Gael on the draft NAMA Bill in order to facilitate a discussion at the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service on August 31.Fine Gael Concerns about NAMAAs you are aware, Enda announced last Friday that Fine Gael does not support the Government's approach to resolving the banking crisis. Our concerns about the NAMA Bill arise from its potentially colossal cost, from its uncertain benefits and from the evident unfairness of asking taxpayers to take responsibility for the reckless behaviour of developers and banks. In particular, we are concerned at:

* The likelihood of over-payment by taxpayers to bank shareholders and bondholders for toxic bank assets of highly uncertain value. The distinction in the draft Bill between current "fire sale" market prices for bank assets and their underlying property collateral and their long-term economic value has some valid theoretical underpinnings, but in practice the latter is impossible to estimate. The banking and property crashes in other countries such as Japan should be a cautionary tale for those who believe that the price for certain types of property will inevitably recover from current market prices. Given the scale of this venture, over-payment could hobble the public finances for a decade;

* The doubtful impact of NAMA on the current lack of bank credit for businesses and households; and

* The wisdom and fairness of transferring responsibility to the taxpayer for the collection of troubled developer debts, and the terrible incentives this creates for repeated reckless behaviour by banks at some future date.A Fine Gael Alternative

As you know, Fine Gael has, as far back as last April, offered a two-track alternative to NAMA that we believe addresses these problems.

Under Track 1, we propose to ensure improved credit availability for businesses by the establishment a wholesale "Good Bank", or National Recovery Bank, capitalised by the State and further leveraged by the ECB and funding markets using the "asset covered bond" model that is well-established in other EU countries.

In parallel, under Track 2, the banks would be given until the end of the Guarantee period in September 2010 to pass a rigorous "stress test" to show that they had repaired their own balance sheets by selling assets (such as foreign subsidiaries), raising more deposits and negotiating down their own liabilities to long-term providers of risk capital and funding.

In the event that the banks cannot pass such a Stress Test by the end of the Guarantee period, Fine Gael's proposal is to split each failed bank into two, leaving the assets with the most uncertain values (the developer loans) in legacy property management companies owned largely by the shareholders and other classes of risk investors.

Deposits, other short-term liabilities, easy-to-value loans like mortgages and business overdrafts, the branch networks and the vast majority of the staff would all move safely and seamlessly into a new, going concern "clean bank", initially owned and guaranteed by the taxpayer. These new "clean banks" would be well capitalised with a clean balance sheet and fully open to resume lending.

We are confident that this break-up procedure would never prove necessary for most of the banks, as they and their investors would have every incentive to avoid it. All the major banks have already announced plans to buy back debt from their bondholders at a discount in a way that generates capital to absorb future losses. These types of "debt buybacks" and debt-to-equity conversions would accelerate dramatically under our policy and at greatly discounted prices.

The advantage of this model over the current NAMA proposal is that the risks and responsibilities associated with working out distressed developer-related loans would remain with those professional bankers and investors that funded the loans and that are best placed to recover them. While the taxpayer may have to have some participation in the legacy property management companies, their losses will only be incurred after the private investors. Private investors would employ the best skills and judgement to recover as much of the money as possible, and there would be no public disquiet about a soft-touch approach for the well-connected developers.

I am, of course, aware of your oft-stated concerns regarding the implications of our proposal for financial stability. But it is international best practice for risk investors in the banks, including some classes of bond-holders, such as owners of subordinated debt, to absorb loan-related losses ahead of taxpayers. This, after all, is the nature of capitalism.Financial stability would also be maintained during this process by extending the Guarantee as necessary on debt roll-overs and all new funding coming into the banks until the sufficient recapitalisation has been achieved and confidence restored.

The Need for a Full Debate on Alternatives to NAMA.

It is disappointing that, given the enormity of the decisions we face over the coming months, that the Government has facilitated so little considered and objective evaluation of the benefits and weaknesses of the NAMA proposal vis--vis the alternatives. To justify its assertion that there is no workable alternative to NAMA, the Government to date has published nothing more than an 11-page summary of a report by Peter Bacon.

I would respectfully suggest that this has not been a formula for generating cross-party or widespread public support for any proposal to deal with the banking crisis. The draft NAMA Bill should now be delayed. In September, the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service should hear testimony from international and domestic experts of the pros and cons of the NAMA proposal vis-a-vis the alternatives that have been presented by other Parties and experts.

Detailed Observations on NAMA.

As I hope you appreciate, Fine Gael's preferred approach to resolving the bank crisis is based not on a dogmatic attachment to a particular model, but rather on a set of core principles: protecting the taxpayer from huge, unmanageable risks; minimising and ensuring a fair distribution of the losses associated with reckless lending by the banks and reckless investments by developers; and improving financial stability and credit availability for struggling businesses and families.

Notwithstanding our deep concerns about the principles underlying the Government's proposed approach to resolving the banking crisis, I am nonetheless concerned to submit detailed observations on how the draft NAMA Bill might be radically overhauled in order to protect the taxpayer and the wider economy.

Below I set out nine specific issues on which I would welcome further detailed engagement by the Minister at the Oireachtas Committee with a view to agreeing amendments to the draft Bill on which I hope all Parties might agree.

1. We want to explore how the Bill could be re-drafted to protect the taxpayer from over-payment to the banks by NAMA by minimising political interference in the process and by establishing a fully independent appeals mechanism that could also hear appeals against high valuations by NAMA.The Government had claimed prior to the publication of the draft Bill that the valuation process would be immune from political influence. But the draft Bill gives the Minister very substantial influence on the "adjustment factors" that NAMA must take into account when estimating the "long term value" premium over current market prices. Valuations and payments by NAMA to the banks can be over-ruled and increased by the Minister, while there is no corollary provision for independent or Ministerial challenge for over-payment by NAMA for bank assets.

2. We want to explore how the NAMA Bill could be re-drafted to ensure that owners of risk capital (both equity and subordinated debt) fully share in the losses resulting in write-downs by NAMA.In particular, we want further clarity as to what status the stated Government policy of avoiding nationalisation of the banks plays in the valuation process. We also want to understand the mechanisms for ensuring losses are absorbed by owners of non-equity risk capital (subordinated debt) in the event that the write-downs by NAMA more than wipe out all the equity in the banks.

3. We want to explore how the NAMA Bill could be re-drafted to allow for risk-sharing between the taxpayer and risk investors in the banks in the future work-out of the bad loans, as has been recommended by the IMF. We do not accept that the bank levy promised by Government to recover NAMA losses is a credible mechanism for risk-sharing between taxpayers and investors.In this regard, we would welcome your views on Professor Patrick Honohan's recommendation that NAMA should pay the banks less than fair value for bad loans, but in return give owners of bank equity and subordinated debt an ownership share in NAMA with upside potential.

4. We want to explore how the Bill could be re-drafted to re-assure the taxpayer that the over-riding objective of NAMA is to maximise the returns to taxpayers on assets purchased by collecting as much of the debts owed as possible, and to put in place the necessary clarity of mandate, robust incentives to achieve this objective, and set benchmarks of comparison. It is not appropriate that this be left to unpublished guidelines.

Only last November, the IMF finished a study on banking and property busts in seven other countries where the NAMA approach was adopted, and concluded that "Government-owned asset management companies appear largely ineffective in resolving distressed assets, largely due to political and legal constraints."

In layman's terms, the IMF believes that state quangos are much less skilled than private bankers at recovering loans from well-connected borrowers. In France, a similar state-owned asset management company in the 1990s lost a total of EUR18 billion (including funding costs) out of EUR28 billion of assets purchased from Credit Lyonnais.

In this regard, a major weakness in the draft Bill is the absence of any principles to guide its relationship with the developers, such as the policy on foreclosures, bankruptcies, work-outs or any of the other hard-nosed aspects of asset management which must be present to protect taxpayers. For example, without explicit protections, there is a very real prospect that in a few years' time, these same individuals will pop up again to buy these assets at an enormous discount, only this time they will be backed by funding from the same banks whose liquidity problems are now being eased. This will not, in my view, be acceptable to the public.

It is not conducive to public confidence that this be left to unpublished, future guidelines to be drafted by the Minister. The "rules of engagement" between NAMA and developers in default of their loans must be clarified in advance.

5. We want to explore how the Bill could be re-drafted to deliver new innovative mechanisms for political oversight, transparency and accountability of this extraordinary agency. These would include giving the Oireachtas an oversight and approval role for the appointment of the directors and CEO, providing "whistle-blower" protections for insiders exposing mal-practice and ensuring detailed oversight and reporting to the Oireachtas by experts appointed by the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of all key stages in the NAMA process, such as loan valuation and asset recovery.

6. We want to explore how the Bill could be re-drafted to require banks that participate in the Scheme to use a proportion of the extra ECB liquidity generated to support bank lending to SMEs and households. There is a danger than banks will use the extra ECB funding only to build up their cash reserves or to pay down other inter-bank or market liabilities.

7. We want to explore how the Bill could be re-drafted to deliver new supports for home-owners at risk of repossession, such as a Scottish-style equity purchase scheme by NAMA for householders facing repossession from mortgage lenders designed to bring their debts down to manageable levels (combined with some mortgage debt write-down by the banks).

8. We need further clarity on the method of payment for loans by NAMA, with particular regard to the coupon to be paid on NAMA bonds in short and long-term and other terms and conditions. We need greater clarity on the agreement with the ECB on NAMA bonds, including whether the ECB has committed to accepting NAMA bonds as collateral for liquidity operations over full duration of life of NAMA.

9. We want to explore how the Bill could be re-drafted to establish the principles under which NAMA will manage the property market (in which it will be a weak monopoly seller) in Ireland's long-term economic interests.I look forward to further engagement and debate on this most important issue for the country over the coming weeks.Sincerely,Richard Bruton T.D.

Monday, August 24, 2009

On Wednesday, August 19th, the Susan B. Anthony List hosted a historic "Keeping Faith with the Unborn" national teleconference as a pro-life response to President Obama's health care proposal.

The call was moderated by Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, and panelists included Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, and Congresswoman Virginia Foxx.

“Keeping Faith with the Unborn” contacted over 300,000 identified pro-life households in fourteen key states across America, including Minnesota, Colorado and Nevada.The pro-life women leaders on the call answered many questions from pro-life citizens, including:-Is abortion really in the health care reform bill? My legislator says the word abortion isn’t in the bill.-What can pro-lifers do to make our voices heard?-I’m concerned about disabled Americans – how will they be affected by this bill?

Please listen to a recording of the call to find out how you can be a voice in the health care debate for unborn children and their mothers.Listen to the healthcare tele-town hall now! Susan B Anthony List

Sunday, August 23, 2009

In President Obama's first year in office the deficit is expected to reach$1.75 trillion. In President Bush's last year in office, 2008, the deficit reached $459 billion. So Obama is quadrupling the deficit. This is voodoo economics at its best. Oh certainly Obama has bought change to America but it is change for the worse.

In addition he is endeavouring to introduce a healthcare plan, which is financially unsustainable. Meanwhile inflation is set to take off. Taxation must rise to fund this Crazonomics. China has begun to question the size of the deficit and is no longer prepared to sign a blank cheque.America may have a slight upturn but the long-term prognosis for the US economy is frightening unless the deficit is tackled immediately. Being master of the teleprompter is no substitute for economic expertise.

America has the worst of all worlds now. A big spending-economically illiterate Democratic President and big spending Democrat controlled Congress, which is addicted to pork barrel spending.

Thankfully the Republican Party has begun to learn the lesson that there is no such thing as a free lunch and is now preaching fiscal rectitude. It has begun to go back to basics.Once Obama passes the 24 month period in office he will be in the run in to the 2012 presidential election. It is safe to argue that if he fails to tackle the deficit within the next 12 months, nothing will be done in 2011 and 2012. Of course foreign lenders may force his hand and refuse to fund the deficit. Then the US economy will bomb.

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Did Malthus really say to kill off the poor?

Yep. In his Essay on the Principle of Population, Malthus calls for increased mortality among the poor:

All the children born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to this level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the deaths of grown persons. . . To act consistently therefore, we should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality; and if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use. Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country, we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlements in all marshy and unwholesome situations. (Book IV, Chap. V) — Read it online.

Malthus thought doctors shouldn't cure diseases?

"But above all, we should reprobate specific remedies for ravaging diseases; and those benevolent, but much mistaken men, who have thought they were doing a service to mankind by projecting schemes for the total extirpation of particular disorders. (Book IV, Chap. V) — Read it online."

Did Paul Ehrlich really say that famines would devastate humanity in the 1970s?

Yep. In his 1968 work The Population Bomb, Ehrlich stated:

"The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines--hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now."

What's the UNFPA? How do they profit from fear?

The United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA) was founded in 1969, the year after Ehrlich published The Population Bomb. They have been involved in programs with governments around the world who deny their women the right to choose the number and spacing of their children. Their complicit work with the infamous "one-child policy" mandated by the government of the People's Republic of China, uncovered by an investigation of the U.S. State Department in 2001, led the United States to pull its funding.

The wealthy of the West, in their terror of poverty, have given copiously to the UNFPA and its population control programs. Visit Population Research Institute for more info.

No way everyone could fit in Texas . . .

According to the U.N. Population Database, the world's population in 2010 will be 6,908,688,000. The landmass of Texas is 268,820 sq mi (7,494,271,488,000 sq ft).

So, divide 7,494,271,488,000 sq ft by 6,908,688,000 people, and you get 1084.76 sq ft/person. That's approximately a 33' x 33' plot of land for every person on the planet, enough space for a town house.

Given an average four person family, every family would have a 66' x 66' plot of land, which would comfortably provide a single family home and yard -- and all of them fit on a landmass the size of Texas. Admittedly, it'd basically be one massive subdivision, but Texas is a tiny portion of the inhabitable Earth.

Such an arrangement would leave the entire rest of the world vacant. There's plenty of space for humanity.

Where are you getting these numbers?

U.N. Population Database. While they provide Low, Medium, and High Variants, the Low Variant is the one that keeps coming true, so the Low variant numbers are the ones used in this video. Check their online database.

The world's population will peak in 30 years? Prove it.

According to the U.N. Population Database, using the historically accurate low variant projection, the Earth's population will only add another billion people or so over the next thirty years, peaking around 8.02 billion people in the year 2040, and then it will begin to decline. Check their online database.

End of Article

Founded in 1989, the Population Research Institute is a non-profit research and educational organization dedicated to objectively presenting the truth about population-related issues, and to reversing the trends brought about by the myth of overpopulation. Our growing, global network of pro-life groups spans over 30 countries.

Rights for distribution are granted so long as proper attribution is given. All articles are under copyright by PRI unless otherwise noted.

1983 Video Medjugorje Visionaries

The movie is taken from a VHS that has been widely used in Italy in the early years and includes amateur shots made in November and December of 1983 when everyone had the good fortune to come to Medjugorje and could easily attend the live appearances ...This documentary shows three apparition sequences involving five of the visionaries (Mirjana is missing). Former priest Fr Tomislav Vlasic is heavily featured.

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Stop The Abortion Mandate Stop Taxpayer Funded Abortion

This video highlights the largest pro-life coalition ever assembled to fight against the abortion mandate in the current Obama nationalized health care legislation. The Obama healthcare plan means the greatest expansion in abortion since Roe V Wade. It involves TAXPAYER FUNDED ABORTION. Taxpayers will be FORCED to fund abortion on demand. America will have taxpayer funded killing. Without an EXPLICIT EXCLUSION of abortion in any healthcare reform bill, abortion will be included. Join the largest ever pro-life coalition assembled to fight taxpayer funded abortion. Time is running out. Contact your Senators and your Representative NOW.Visit Stop The Abortion Mandate for CONTACT DETAILS.

Monday, August 17, 2009

This powerful 65 minute video deals with some of the major apparitions of the Virgin Mary in the 20th century. It features Fatima, Garabandal,Medjugorje,Beauraing, Banneux,Zeitoun (Egypt) and Uganda amongst others.

Friday, August 14, 2009

To begin click on the key ►

May Take Time To Load If Necessary Click Several Times

Our Ladys Message to Mirjana

Dear children; I am coming, with my motherly love, to point out the way by which you are to set out, in order that you may be all the more like my Son; and by that, closer to and more pleasing to God. Do not refuse my love. Do not renounce salvation and eternal life for the sake of transience and frivolity of this life. I am among you to lead you and, as a mother, to caution you. Come with me.

It is scarcely surprising that-as of now- four Green Party constituency organisations have passed motions calling for a special convention on NAMA, the “bad bank” being set up by the Government to buy toxic loans from lenders.A convention will be held by the Greens before the legislation goes into the Dáil on September 16th if a similar motion is passed by one more constituency organisation.

The party suffered a shattering reverse in the June local government elections and now holds only three seats nationwide. This was exacerbated by the abysmal performance of Dan Boyle and Deirdre De Burca in the Euro elections. Independent Patricia McKenna-who left the party- secured a higher vote than the official Green candidate Deirdre De Burca in the Dublin Euro Constituency. Party fortunes are at a low ebb.

Some observers suspect that the Green Party may be searching for an exit strategy. Such a conference might offer such a possibility. Superficially this might appear to be an attractive option. However if considered at a deeper level it would be- in all probability -highly unwise for the following reasons:(1) In general, electorates tend to punish small political parties, which precipitate elections.(2) The electorate would view such a move with the utmost cynicism. The Greens would be perceived as being more interested in saving their own political skins.(3) They would be viewed as a party unsuitable for government and incapable of taking unpopular decisions. Greens would be labelled cowards. A vote for a Green TD would be a wasted vote.(4) An immediate election would cost the party its full complement of seats.(5) Remaining in Government ensures that the party has 6 TDs and 2 Senators until the 2012 General Election and offers it some prospect of surviving.If it loses its TDs in an early election it is FINISHED as a political force. No doubt party leader John Gormley is well aware of the hostile reception awaiting Green and FF candidates at the doorsteps in an early election campaign. It is a case of hang together or hang separately. Would turkeys vote for Christmas? The Greens are now trapped in government by the need for self preservation.

MYTH #1: The abortion mandate is an email rumor; the word “abortion” does not appear in any of the major health care bills currently pending in the House and Senate.FACT: The abortion mandate is very real. The absence of the word abortion is very reason why the proposed legislation will mandate abortion on virtually every American health care plan. For example, look no further than the federal Medicaid statute which does not mention the word abortion, yet Medicaid funded as many as 300,000 abortions per year prior to enactment of the Hyde amendment.MYTH #2:The Obama administration doesn’t want to change the status quo with regard to abortion. They will not allow an abortion mandate.FACT: The President himself said that reproductive care is at the heart of his health care plan.1 And Hilary Clinton has confirmed that the administration considers abortion to be part of reproductive health. More recently Office of Budget and Management Chief Peter Orszag told "FOX News Sunday" on July 19, 2009 that it is not "prepared to rule [taxpayer funded abortion] out" of the healthcare legislation.2MYTH #3: The courts can’t mandate abortion coverage if abortion isn’t even written into the health bill.FACT: In the mid-1990s the Hyde amendment was adjusted to no longer ban Medicaid abortion funding in cases of rape and incest abortion. Even though the Medicaid statute didn’t refer directly to abortion,they reverted to the assumed mandate that abortion would be covered. States that tried to refuse to pay for rape and incest abortions, were overruled by courts that said because abortion falls under broad categories of care in the Medicaid statute, states must fund abortion even if it violates their individual state law.MYTH #4: The so-called "Hyde Amendment" restricts federal funds from paying for abortions through Medicaid and applies in the healthcare bill.FACT:Actually the health care overhaul bypasses the Hyde amendment. But even if it didn’t, we cannot be fooled by this pro-abortion “two-step.” If the Hyde amendment did apply it would still be subject to annual re-approval. Significant portions of the proposed legislation are not subject to the Hyde amendment.MYTH #5: Proposed legislation maintains the status quo, but pro-life amendments go further than current law.FACT: Permanent abortion funding bans are contained in other health care laws including Department of Defense health care coverage and the Children’s Health Insurance Plan. If Representatives and Senators oppose taxpayer funding for abortion or plans that cover abortion,it only follows that such an explicit provision must be contained in the healthcare bill.Visit:StopTheAbortionMandate

About Me

This blog will deal primarily with Irish and International political issues. I have long believed that the greater the diversity of comment the stronger our democracy. On occasions analysis may be quite trenchant. I also intend to range over diverse cultural strands of Irish and world society. Sports such as Hurling and Rugby Union -primarily but not exclusively-will feature from time to time.
Other issues -that take my fancy- will surface.